Author
Topic: What's the difference between us and the spurs? (Read 9690 times)

I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this. He is a past finals MVP. I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success. He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else. He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving. He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed). You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there. He still had decisions to make. International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse. No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008. I really see no need to keep making the argument. Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances.

That all seems pretty clear cut. I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore.

I'm pointing out that comparing organizations stretches further back than 2008. That comparing organizations should stretch to 2003, when Danny Ainge joined our front office.

Danny Ainge runs the Celtics front office, not Kevin Garnett.Popovich and Buford run the Spurs organization, not Tim Duncan.

If you want to compare the differences between the teams in cap management, international scouting, etc..., 2003 should be your starting point. KG doesn't make those decisions.

That all seems pretty clear cut to me.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this. He is a past finals MVP. I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success. He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else. He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving. He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I don't think you'll find a lot of folks taking issue with your giving Parker his share of the credit for the Spurs success.

He does consistently seem to be one of the most underrated players in this league, though. He just quietly goes about being one of the best PGs in the game, while rarely getting the kind of publicity that guys like Paul, Williams, Rose, Westbrook, and Rondo (who is finally starting to get recognition) get.

I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this. He is a past finals MVP. I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success. He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else. He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving. He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I saw no mention of Tony Parker in this. He is a past finals MVP. I know many are not going to want to hear this said but I think Tony Parker is a big part of their success. He seems content to fly under the radar as the 2nd or 3rd fiddle on the team but he is a top NBA point gaurd.

His quickness, penetration, and shooting open things up for everyone else. He doesn't get as many assists as some PGs becasue the Spurs keep the ball moving. He may make the first good pass but then the ball keeps rotating as the defense rotates to someone with a good shot.

He is not as strong or athletic as Rondo or Chris Paul but I think he is quicker with the ball than either and a better shooter/scorer, certainly than Rondo and maybe even Paul.

I said he probably couldn't take Kris Humphries in a fight.

Ha! I remember that post. Parker was indeed mentioned!

They'd probably be friends and share stories about Eva Longoria and Kim Kardashian. Perhaps they should write a book together.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime. Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)? Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point. Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams, and execs by playoff success.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension. Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic. Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

Ainge's tenure as GM had its share of luck as well. Remember his desire to acquire Allen Iverson? All indications are that it was Philly who said no. Imagine our team with Iverson instead of KG, or Iverson instead of Rondo, or Iverson instead of both. Or perhaps Shawn Marion instead of KG? Ainge has had good fortune too.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime. Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)? Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point. Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams, and execs by playoff success.

Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension. Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic. Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

If you want to go that far back, you should do an apples to apples and compare Danny's first 5 years to Pop's, starting in 94 and considering the fact that he inherited a team with a franchise center on it.

Fair enough. Danny started with a Hall of Fame forward, which isn't such a terrible building block. I'd say Popovich's performance compares favorably.

Or you could even start from when Buford took over in 2002.

Not a bad place to start but clearly not a David Robinson in his prime level of player.

Sure. I'll grant that. I think clearly is kind of a stretch, considering Robinson had only won 2 first round series before Pop came along. They'll probably both fall in the 30-50 range of greatest players ever by the time Pierce retires.

Robinson won an MVP and finished top 3 in the voting 4 other times. He was making all nba teams over players like Hakeem and Ewing and Shaq. Did you actually see Robinson play? Because, frankly, I hated him as a player but there's no way he's on the same level as PP.

Yes, I did see Robinson play. Pierce is a first ballot Hall of Famer in his own right and has a laundry list of credentials, but sure, Robinson was better.

Given all that, I still prefer Popovich's run (and definitely Buford's run) to Ainge's.

Starting off with just Paul Pierce on your roster doesn't excuse the Mark Blount contract, the Ricky Davis trade, the Sebastian Telfair trade, at the beginning of his tenure. Starting without a Hall of Fame center doesn't mean you have to acquire guys like Blount, Telfair, and Ricky. Even by 90's-00's Celtics standards, those are three brutal moves that I wouldn't recommend regardless of who you start with.

Ainge's early years have a lot more misses than hits (and some pretty severe misses), David Robinson or not.

Did you catch any of Robinson's prime, or did you just catch the end of his career? The fact that you thought Robinson and PP were fairly similar players is hard to believe. But beyond that, not having a player like Robinson does explain much of what Ainge did. Give him a franchise center just entering his prime and there's no reason to expect him to make the same type of moves than he did with the roster that he had. As for Pop, if he hadn't won the Duncan lottery he'd never be known as a superstar coach or gm.

I caught his prime. Did you catch Pierce's prime (which Ainge squandered part)? Robinson was better, which I have agreed with more than a few times, so you are arguing with yourself on that point. Pierce was a fine building block too, in fact, he is still here, and headed for the Hall of Fame. Still, Robinson barely won in the playoffs before Pop and went to the Conference Finals immediately as Pop stepped in as GM, if we measure players, teams, and execs by playoff success.

Yes, I saw Pierce's prime. I just missed the part where he was fairly comparable to Robinson, which was your original assertion.

Regardless, I disagree with the assertion that lacking a franchise center forces someone to trade for Sebastian Telfair or sign Mark Blount to a monster extension. Making your team worse because you lack a franchise center defies all logic. Even the most green tinted glasses, which you seem to be sporting, would have to see that this was a bad move for the roster that he had (or the roster that anyone had).

First of all, while the Blount signing was a mistake, he didn't sign a "monster contract", he signed the same MLE contract that other teams were offering him. But it's pretty silly to claim that the fact that the Celts not having a franchise level big man didn't figure into the moves Danny was making. Unless you have a Jordan or a James it's very hard to win without one, and the bulk of the mistakes gm's make are in the pursuit of big men when they don't have one.

I didn't claim that not having a franchise caliber big man didn't factor into Danny's moves or any other GMs. I think it is silly to put words into people's mouths and then argue those words.

Mark Blount's extension was an overpay of about $35 million considering he is a league minimum caliber big man. If others were offering a similar amount, the prudent move would've been to let others make that mistake. So the Sebastian Telfair trade and the Ricky Davis trade were made because of desperation in lacking a big man? Danny's list of mistakes to begin his tenure are longer than you care to remember. I still fail to see how lacking a franchise center is motivation for making your team worse and its salary structure worse.

David Robinson or no David Robinson, Telfair, Davis, Blount were all terrible moves.

If your answer to lacking a franchise big man is to acquire 3 of the people who least embody what it means to be a Celtic out of desperation, I'd say that is what is silly.

Regardless, this could go on forever. When comparing the two crganizations, what do you personally feel the Celtics do better and what do you feel the Spurs do better? Cap management, drafting, international scouting, coaching, etc....? Touting our recent playoff success and their lack thereof, why is that? What organizational flaws do you see in San Antonio or in Boston? Less snark and more analytical thinking would be fun.